The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-06-05


be shown clearly, and .he writer
proposes to show, that this repeal
was, in no way or manner, plot or
an intrigue, or the result OF collision
with any person or persons, but that
it was the logical outgrowth
of previous circumstances and
events. the logical sequence to
the legislation of 1850, and the
only policy logically consistent with
the great principle Of non-interven-
ton Of Congress with slavery in the
|. Territories, which had been adopted
in 1850 by Congress as the basis Of its
action regarding the Territories.
And that Mr.. Dixon, as Senator from
Kentucky, could have pursued no
other course than to move the repeal
of that act Of Intervention (by which
the whole Southern people were shut
out from the great Western Territor-
ies) without inconsistency, and de-
parture from the very principles of
Intervention which, as put forth
by Mr.. Clay, he had maintained and
advocated with signal ability, and
with all the vigor and energy Of his
nature, before the people of his State,
and at the cost of his own election as
Governor in 1851.
1t will be shown that Judge Doug
las was the true author of the COM
promise measures of 1850; that Mr..
Clay received them at his hands, and
adopted them as his own, without
even a change of verbiage, carrying
them through Congress by the sheer
force of his wonderful personality :;
that Judge Douglas, having himself
embodied in those measures that pol
icy of intervention, only needed
to have it pointed out to him that
his Nebraska bill did not carry out
that policy truly, but only on its face;
that when convinced of this he need
ed no other motive to prompt him at
once to meet the difficulty in the
only way in which it could be hon
estiy met-by Incorporating in his
bill virtual repeal OF that act of re-
striction heretofore spoken of. And
he did this knowing that it was at
the risk of all personal popularity in
his own State.
This repeal will be Invested of all
mystery; its motion will be shown to
have been simply the bold and
Straightforward act OF a bold and
straightforward man, whose only de-
sign was to secure the people of the
slave holding States that equal JUS
tice to which he believed them en-
titled, and of restoringto them those
rights of immigratioDs to and settle
ment in the vast Western Terrific
ries of the United States, of which
they had been wrongfully deprived
by the celebrated act of 1920.
1t has been said, and perhaps be-
lieved by many, that the repeal of
the Missouri compromise brought
on, or at all events, fastened the war
between the States. 1t may have
done so. But suppose it did-does
that alter the fact of the justice OF
the claim of the South to her equal
share in the great Territories of the
West? Was the refusal of the
North to grant to the South
that to which she was entitle d,
any evidence that the South
was not entitled to itP And because
the South had yielded her rights in
the Territories when she could not
keep them without disunion, was
that any reason why she should not
attempt TO regain thoIn rhonovor an
awakened sense of justice, on the
part of the conservative men of the
North, should enable her to do 80 =?
Had she not, in 1854, every reason to
suppose that this was the case2 And
was it not really SO? When Frank
lin Pierce, after having voted in
Congress straight out for the reso-
lutions of Mr.. Calhoun, was elected
President of the United States, was
there not good reason for the belief
that that sense OF justice to the
South was awakened in all hearts
save those of the abolitionists, whose
only care was for the negroes of the
South and themselves, and who had
no sympathies whatever with the
whites of that region2 No; it was
not the repeal of the Missouri com
promise that fastened the war, it
was the departure from the principle
of that repeal, non intervention, that
brought it about. Had that great
principle been carried out fairly
by the people and parties on both
sides there would have been no war.
Had the Territories been lett to their
natural settlement, according as eli
mate and soil should dictate, as was
expected and designed by the mover
of the repeal, there would have been
no war. 1t was the departure from
this policy by the extreme men of
both the great parties of the country
that brought it on.
The South only wanted Justice
that justice as to which Henry Clay
had declared in his great speech Of
1850: II insist that if there be legis-
lation interdicting slavery north of
the line, then the principles of equal
ity would require that there should
be legislation admitting slavery south
of the line" The plain corollary of
this proposition being, thatif slavery
were not admitted south of the line,
then neither should it be prohibited
north of the liue. Mr.. Clay did not
demand the repeal of the Missouri
compromise in 1850. He only de.
clared the principle of it unjust,
and advocated non-intervention.
He did not demand for
the South that justice to which
he declared her entitled, because
he thought it could not be obtained.
Mr.. Dixon, in 1854, did demand it,
because he believed it to be right,
because he relied on the sense of JUS
tice of the Northern people to do
that which was right, and because it
was the only way by which that non
Intervention, which he himself had
advocated, could be made a reality
instead of mere sham. He de-
manded this equal Justice to the
South because he believed it could